from the solving-problems dept

As we mentioned, a week ago on Wednesday, October 10th, we spent the entire day in an "Artists & Entrepreneurs Working Group" brainstorming session. For me, personally, it was a truly fantastic experience: a chance to get together a bunch of people who don't normally talk -- and then to actually work together in an open fashion to listen to each other, to understand each other and to look together for actual solutions to challenges we all face. The day was basically a blank slate, with a very loose agenda: in the morning, we'd discuss challenges, in the afternoon brainstorm thoughts about how to deal with those challenges, and then conclude by seeing if there were any specific things that we could start doing now.

The whole thing was very much an experiment. Unlike conferences that segment themselves down to one-hour increments of panels and interviews, here was a chance to spend a day together, without specific agendas, focused on really talking and brainstorming with the goal of doing something productive and helpful. In many ways, the experience was exhilarating. It's something you don't often get to experience: lots of really smart people, with very different experiences and perspectives, not giving prepared speeches or covering the same old ground but actually discussing things openly, making connections, brainstorming new ideas and actively thinking about big problems.

Part of the idea behind this event was that for too long the discussion has basically been the same: get a few people who disagree about something to sit opposite each other on TV, on a panel, on the web, or anywhere else, and argue with each other for a short period of time. In such events people too often come with lots of prepared points and then talk past each other, with nothing productive coming out of it. Panels and debates can be good, and they have their place -- but we thought that entrepreneurs and artists are a lot more similar than they are different. We're all running out own businesses in many ways. And we're all creating something new and wonderful. It seems like there's tremendous common ground in our shared situations.

And yet, at the same time, there are some very real differences. So we thought, if we looked at that as an opportunity and sought to better understand those differences, with a focus on looking for ways to help each other, could we create something that wasn't "the same old debate?" Could we, instead, focus on doing something productive?

That was an ambitious goal -- but it's one I think we accomplished. The event itself exceeded my own expectations (by a wide margin). Bringing together a large group of really smart people (many of whom have very strong opinions) for an entire day, without an agenda, and saying "hey, everyone, talk!" seemed like it had the potential to be a complete disaster -- but it was the exact opposite. It resulted in a beautiful, inspiring, thought-provoking discussion that is going to continue, and will hopefully lead to many more wonderful things.

The group was impressive. We shamelessly piggybacked on SF Music Tech (with encouragement from SFMT's master of everything, Brian Zisk, who also allowed us to host a sort of "preview" panel at SFMT). However, we went beyond just music, and the variety of perspectives was refreshing. There were musicians there, but also authors, filmmakers and even a painter and a designer/roboticist, among others. There were those who worked closely with artists, including indie labels and artists' representatives. And, of course, there were entrepreneurs from a variety of companies, including Humble Bundle, Bandcamp, IndieGoGo, Smashwords, CASH music, TopSpin, Pandora, Songkick, Bandzoogle, Bookmooch and a few others.

In the morning we discussed challenges that people faced. That was the extent of the official agenda -- and after briefly introducing the event and highlighting some responses from the survey I'd asked people to fill out earlier, the group was off and running, bringing up a variety of different issues and challenges and discussing their own experiences openly.

It will be interesting to see some of the other attendees share their thoughts about the event, but the key challenges that I heard as the discussion went on were:

Resources: It's tough to do what you want to do if you don't have the resources to do it. This is kind of a universal one, and not at all surprising. Obviously, this applies to both artists and entrepreneurs, but in different ways and to different degrees. A lack of resources can be not just a challenge, but something immensely stressful as well.

A missing roadmap: It was interesting just how often this one came up. One of the biggest challenges everyone admitted to facing was the fact that there is no roadmap for what you should do these days, and no single definition of success. The path (especially on the artist side, but also to a degree on the entrepreneur side) is a lot less clear than it may have been in the past -- and that uncertainty can make life difficult. It's one thing to follow steps A, B and C and face different challenges at each. But it's something else entirely if you have no idea where to go next. And part of the discussion was that the roadmap is very different for everyone. There are successful "working class" musicians who make a living day in, day out, and there are big "rock stars." They define success differently. Similarly, there are entrepreneurs who want to build a good, profitable business (sometimes called "a lifestyle business") and there are those who look to be the equivalent of rockstars: raising tons of money, becoming the next big IPO, etc. Plus there are all sorts of personalized dreams that will be a bit different for every person. How you get from here to there changes depending on how you define success, and that makes it all the harder for people to plot out their "roadmap" by finding good advice and sharing strategies with each other.

Education: Perhaps connected to the roadmap issue, this one was about learning what's out there, and what the possibilities are. The challenge here was somewhat different for entrepreneurs and artists, it seemed. Entrepreneurs wanted to figure out how to better educate people about what they themselves were doing, while artists wanted to better educate themselves (and others) about career strategies and the entrepreneurial side of being and artist. For entrepreneurs, some looked upon education as going hand in hand with marketing (which could potentially turn off some artists). For artists, there was a clear desire to better connect with other artists, and some concern that artists don't talk enough about these things among themselves.

Discovery: This is obviously a big challenge on both sides. For entrepreneurs it's about finding new customers and users and for artists it's about finding new fans. Everyone was interested in ways to do more of this, but admitted that it's a very big challenge in a wide open digital world. Too often people think that if you do something great, the people just show up. That happens, but it's rare. You can be a great musician, but people still have to find out about you. You can build a great tool or service, but if no one uses it, what good is it? Having people learn about you and like you is a challenge that many people seem to underestimate.

Policy: There were some concerns about where government policy might get in the way of certain things -- whether it's preventing artists from doing what they want, or making life challenging for entrepreneurs. We had some discussions about areas where artists and entrepreneurs could agree on policy issues. Also, there were significant concerns about who has the most influence on policy, and whose interests they really represented.

Highlighting challenges is one thing, but solving them is another. People seemed quite enthusiastic about taking these challenges and seeing what could be done to ease them, or turn them into greater opportunities, so the afternoon was spent mostly brainstorming -- sometimes tossing out crazy ideas, sometimes digging in on specific details, and openly discussing a variety of possible things that could be done.

In fact, part of what was so encouraging was that the constant theme, throughout the entire event -- from basically everyone, no matter where they came from -- was "what can we do to help." Obviously, not everyone agreed with everything that was suggested -- but in the spirit of brainstorming, people seemed to consistently build on what others were saying, seeking the key insight that we could build on and focusing the conversation on those opportunities.

From my perspective, I learned a lot about where some of the misunderstandings between entrepreneurs and artists come from, where there are often misinterpreted expectations and objectives. As a group we mentally chewed on a variety of ideas, often recognizing that there were no "easy" solutions, but that there had to be something better. Could there be better material to educate each other? Would a unified source for information do that? There was a recognition that different artists have very different experiences.

We had discussions about how people defined success, and how priorities shifted over time. We discussed ways to get more people talking about these things. We discussed concerns about what others might do with things that we brought into the world -- whether it was content or tools and services.

Over time, we began to hit on a few key points, and areas where there were possibilities to actually make a difference. There was a fair bit of interest in the possibility of building a large copyright database, along the lines of what Ian Rogers has suggested in the past, that covers licensing terms for any work, as well as just general ownership info (since sometimes it's not at all clear who owns the rights to certain works for the purpose of licensing them). Some also suggested that such a database could include additional useful metadata as well (prior to the session, one musician pointed out how nice it would be to have a database that would make it easier to find out who did audio engineering on tracks you liked, to make it easier to seek them out for your own recordings).

There was some discussion over whether or not this was something the Copyright Office should do, along with some concerns that there was no way that it could do it without massive, massive changes. And, not to be left out, there were some discussions about US vs. international policy, since although we were mostly a US-based group, we did have at least one foreign-based artist in attendance, who had some different issues to deal with.

Out of all of this, we put together a list of things that we thought we could actually do something about:

Continue this conversation: There seemed to be agreement across the board that (1) the all day discussion had tremendous value in a lot of ways, both in generating ideas and getting people to think through possibilities, but that (2) a one day event, no matter how focused on being practical and productive, wasn't really enough time to come to any grand conclusions. But everyone agreed that we, as a group (with some additional folks) should be continuing the conversation in some way, whether it's online or through more in-person brainstorming sessions. That task was put on me, and I'm working on it.

There's an opportunity to create & curate useful info: There's a lot of info out there, with no shortage of advice being offered to artists and entrepreneurs, which is potentially overwhelming and can make it difficult to zero in on what's actually useful. They suggested that the education component could be helped by having better curation of such content. Others suggested that perhaps specific events could serve this purpose, with the example of "filmmaker labs" being tossed out. One concern raised: none of this content will get consumed if it's not presented in a fun and interesting way that attracts people. If it's just piling together a bunch of content into a haystack, that won't help people as much. Figuring out how this could be done and who should be involved is an ongoing discussion, with one concern being how to ensure that such a source doesn't become myopic and start pushing one set of ideas when the landscape is truly open and still evolving.

Getting data: This came up both for the purpose of better education through aggregate data, and also to drive towards a possible rights database. There was a suggestion that, if Apple could be convinced to share its data, that could be a starting point -- though that would cover mostly music (but some TV and movie stuff as well). There were mixed opinions on whether or not Apple could ever be convinced to open up this data.

Standardization: An interesting point that was raised was that part of the reason for a cloudy roadmap and an abundance of choice for artists (that makes things difficult) may be the near-complete lack of standardization. That is, there are a number of startups that often seem to be reinventing the wheel or working on similar types of tools, and that there might be much more value created (for everyone) if there was some standardization at the platform level. Say, for example, a common format for storing and communicating all of the info about an artist and their catalogue between various sites and services. Then different service providers could seek to build tools and services above that, and let the competition occur at that level. This would provide a somewhat more defined setup and less confusion over what services can help in what ways. It might also lead to better integration between different services, allowing artists to do a lot more. This was left as an issue for some of the entrepreneurs to continue discussions over, to see if there was a way to make it happen.

Policy Issues: Going back to the copyright / metadata database discussion, there were some thoughts on whether or not there were ways to get the policy world to recognize how useful and valuable such a database would be for almost everyone. There was some concern about the few players it might disrupt (publishers, for one) who value keeping some of that data proprietary, but a general sense that the overall benefit of such a database for artists and entrepreneurs would be tremendous.

Seeing as the conversation went from 9am to 5pm, there was obviously a lot of other things discussed -- but these were my own key takeaways. I'm sure that some of the others there had their own takeaways as well. For me, the day was really quite energizing. Getting a lot of really smart people together to discuss interesting ideas, opportunities and challenges -- and doing so in a productive manner -- was really a tremendous amount of fun. I'm already working to keep the conversation moving and see where we go next. In total, about 45 people showed up during the day -- with a core group of about 25 making it from start to finish (the absolute troopers) and another 20 stopping in for parts or having to take off early.

This obviously is not the end of the discussion by any means, and one thing that is part of the plan is to continue to get more people involved to get more insights. On the whole, though, considering that this was completely a first-time experiment -- in which we had no clear format and no real agenda, and we mostly just let the conversation go wherever it went -- I think it was quite successful. We haven't changed the world, but perhaps we can start making good things happen.

Special thanks go out to everyone who attended, whether for the whole day or just a part. Extra special thanks to the smaller group of folks who helped me think through the event in the months and weeks leading up to it, letting me toss out ideas and giving me feedback on how the effort might be more productive and fun. Also, thanks to Hattery for providing us with the unique space (with slightly odd acoustics), and to Google for sponsoring, so that we could provide everyone with bagels and coffee in the morning, and sandwiches and chips at lunch.

On the whole, the event has me really excited about possibilities for the future -- including more gatherings like this one. We'll be continuing the discussion between artists and entrepreneurs, and are hoping to hold more events going forward, while also seeing if we can really take some of the ideas and suggestions and help make them a reality. One legitimate concern raised towards the end was that there were a lot of good ideas, but ideas without execution are meaningless, and execution without leadership is rare. I think a big next challenge will be finding people who will step up and take ownership of some of the suggestions to see if they can, with wider support, turn them into something real. That, of course, is the biggest challenge of them all -- but, given the excitement about the possibilities, it seems like a challenge worth tackling.

from the jazz-pickles dept

Back in June, we shared a story in which a comic artist had claimed that another artist had "ripped off" her idea. We even took the time to remind people that multiple comedians can come up with the same joke independently of each other. These situations are nothing new in comedy. In such situations, the person who feels ripped off has a number of choices. They can threaten to sue the other person. They can use social mores to shame the other person. Or they can go a totally different route -- one in which everyone comes out a winner.

Here's a bit of a sticky wicket I thought you Jazz Pickles might find interesting. After my pantsless doctor cartoon appeared in papers the other day I got an email from my friend and colleague, Dan Reynolds. Dan is a terrifically talented and successful cartoonist whose work I have always admired. It seems my doctor cartoon is uncomfortably close to a very popular one that he did some years ago.

In most similar situations we report on here, this is the part where the person complaining usually sends a legal threat of some sort. But that is not what happened. What happened was something refreshing and quite out of the norm, at least in these circles. Both artists realized that people can come up with the same joke independently and then brushed the incident off.

Did I steal this cartoon? Of course not and Dan did not accuse me of it. Cartoonists with a large readership and an I.Q. above 75 (me) are not foolish enough to publish a stolen cartoon, especially from someone with an equally large readership (Dan R.).

...

Oh well, these things happen. Dan R. was a gentlemen about it and readily accepted our apology. We're all still friends. :o)

What amazes me here is that two grown adults actually acted like adults. Why can't we have more of these kinds of interactions? Even when the idea was almost identical, both were able to look past that and see the reality of the situation.

In response to the unfortunate incident, Piraro has decided to take a bit more precaution in the future. He has decided to do Google image searches of future ideas, just to make sure that he doesn't step on the toes of anyone else. However, he recognizes that even that plan has a glaring weakness.

Cliff and I work together frequently so we committed to redouble our efforts to Google-Image-search all of our ideas to make sure no one else had gotten there first. The thing is, though, we decided to retro-search this one and could not find it under any of the titles we could think of. “Backwards Doctor Coat Cartoon” was our most obvious choice but Dan’s cartoon didn’t show up in that search. So we still would have been screwed.

So even if he does a search, there are no guarantees that someone else's work would come up which matches his idea. Under these circumstances, how much effort should one allow? I would say that even doing the initial search is probably more than enough. It is more than you are actually required to do. Yet, there are some people out there that seem to think that is not enough -- that a person in Piraro's situation should have just known about that other comic. But as Piraro has shown, it is just not possible to cover all your bases.

All in all, this is a great experience for all the things it can teach us. 1) Acting like adults when a situation arises results in mutually beneficial results. 2) Recognizing that no joke is a unique flower incapable of being copied unintentionally is a wise move. 3) That even the best Google-fu cannot prevent you from unintentionally copying someone else's joke. Sounds like some pretty good lessons to me.

from the it-goes-beyond-semantics:-it's-about-understanding dept

A bunch of folks on all sides of the copyright debate have been submitting the recent post from the blog Copyhype (by a recent law school grad named Terry Hart) about the whole "infringement vs. theft" debate in terms of what to call it when someone's copyright is infringed. Hart is very careful and specific, but in the end tends to lean towards it being perfectly acceptable in many instances to refer to infringement as theft:

It's technically correct that "copyright infringement" and "theft" have distinct legal meanings, but so what? The idea that the legal distinction between the two terms forecloses any colloquial comparison is invalid. "Theft" in the legal sense has always meant something far narrower than "theft" in the everyday sense. In early English common law, for example, the crime of theft only included the taking of another's property by force or by stealth. It didn't include the taking of property by deception or trick, and it also didn't include the taking of property by someone in whom the property was entrusted. While today we would have no problem saying a delivery truck driver engaged in "theft" if he kept a package instead of delivering it, earlier courts had to jump through several hoops before reaching the same conclusion.

He goes on to knock those who quote the Supreme Court opinion in Dowling v. US, where Justice Blackmun makes it clear that infringement and theft are two different things. Hart claims that people who quote Dowling are quoting Blackmun out of context, while also noting Justice Breyer's concurring opinion in the Grokster case that says "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."

His overall argument, however, is that there's nothing wrong with calling copyright infringement theft, because beyond the legal definition, it accurately shows how people feel about having works infringed, and that's useful to the debate on these issues:

The debate over the labels we give to copyright is interesting in an academic sense but largely meaningless in the real world. Creators often use words like "theft" to reflect how they feel about acts of infringement. Shifting the focus from the colloquial meaning of the word to the legal meaning accomplishes little more than arguing for the sake of argument, while misusing language from case law only forecloses a fuller understanding of the law.

I agree, in part, but mostly disagree with Hart's conclusion here. I agree that arguing back and forth over which Supreme Court justice said what is somewhat meaningless. However, I disagree strongly that this becomes argument for the sake of argument. Whether we are speaking legally or economically or about the impact on any individual or organization, "theft" and "infringement" are two separate and different things. This is important. If you are seeking to understand what is happening and how to respond to it, calling it "theft" immediately shuts the door on a variety of important points. It closes off a path to understanding both what's happening and how one might best deal with it. I find that incredibly dangerous from the perspective of a content creator. Calling infringement theft or not isn't just a semantic argument from people who like to argue. It's about actually understanding what's going on, and that's simply not possible when you put up a wall to understanding.

So, yes, arguing over what justice said what in which Supreme Court ruling may not enlighten anyone, but looking at the actual details of what's going on, and making sure that you do not falsely lump two very different concepts into one in such a way as to preclude actual understanding, is no mere semantic argument. It's about actually understanding the issues in a way that can move people forward. Calling it theft is wrong. And not because some Supreme Court justice said so, but because it's wrong at an absolute level. You can call an apple and orange because of how it makes you feel, but that doesn't make it correct, and hinders your ability to understand the differences between apples and oranges.

from the can-only-copy-once? dept

Clive Thompson has a blog post about how he took a photo at a Canadian art gallery of his son staring at a painting, after noticing how similar some paintings from a hundred years ago were to some modern paintings done by a friend -- and recognizing that both were actually inspired by a third school of art. He notes that he was able to appreciate the old paintings much more (despite having seen them years ago) because of his understanding of his friend's more recent paintings. And immediately after snapping the photo, he got in trouble for it, as the museum said it had to block photographs for copyright reasons. As Thompson explains:

It reminded me of a point often made by folks who fight overly-aggressive copyright laws: All new art is based on art that came before, so copyright law ought not to be too rigid. If you can't remix and resample and re-use art -- after a reasonable term of exclusivity for the original creators, who in this case are long dead -- then culture dies. More subtly yet, our appreciation for earlier art dies if our contemporary artists cannot easily plunder the styles and content of their forebears.

The irony here is that the instant after I snapped this picture, the security guards of the Art Gallery of Ontario raced over to (politely) warn me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures. Why? Well, some art galleries disallow photos because flashes can damage paintings, a prohibition that makes total sense. But my iPhone doesn't have a flash. No, the Art Gallery of Ontario prohibits photographs of artwork because of copyright restrictions.... It's even more daft when you consider that I'm basically doing free promotion here.You want people to visit galleries? Well, surely one good way is to let visitors take and post photos of their little kids spellbound by major works of art.

Many copyright defenders continue to insist that nothing is "lost" by stricter copyright rules, but you can't always quantify what never happens -- and Thompson does a good job showing how overly restrictive rules can, in fact, limit how we learn or appreciate art, by flat out limiting new ways that people can get exposed to works.

from the and-that's-good-enough dept

It's hardly a new idea, but BullJustin points us to an article in Wired about what the author, Robert Capps, refers to as The Good Enough Revolution, in which he talks about various offerings that have succeeded in the marketplace, despite not having the "quality" of the leading products. So, he talks about the Flip Digital video cameras, compared to higher end camcorders, mp3s vs. CDs, and things like Zoho Writer vs. Microsoft Word. His explanation is that these "lower quality" products are "good enough," and tend to offer certain features, such as easier accessibility, lower price and better ease of use.

I'd argue that the concept of "good enough" misses the point -- and the real issue is that the actual quality is in those other characteristics that he discusses. The real problem is that some start to focus on the "quality" of some aspect of the product, rather than the quality of meeting what the consumer wants. It's the same thing we've discussed over and over again, with a company (or industry) not really understanding its market. The first automobiles were a lot crappier than the fancy horse carriages you could buy -- but they did the important thing better: getting you somewhere faster and cheaper.

The issue is that the focus on "quality" is on the wrong attribute. It's also why many people falsely claim that the VHS beat Betamax, despite "lower quality." Yes, it may have had lower quality of the recorded video, but that wasn't the attribute people cared about. They wanted to be able to record longer videos, which the Betamax was not set up to do, but VHS was. In almost every one of these stories, you find that it really was an issue of quality -- but the real question was what attribute the market cared about when it came to quality.

With the MP3 and the Flip Camera and Zoho Writer (and many others), it appears convenience is a driving attribute. So while all may seem to have less in terms of the type of "quality" that some like to focus on, they ignore what the market actually wants, which appears to be convenience.

This, too, is one of the reasons why it doesn't make sense to get so focused on the product when you don't know what the market actually wants. The people who create the initial products almost always assume that the most important attributes are the product itself, rather than the convenience it provides users. There will always be snobs who want to focus on the "highest quality" possible, but they're part of a small market, rather than a mass market. And if that's "good enough" for them, that's fine -- but it misses the real marketing opportunity.